Role of Autologous Versus Homologous Cartilage in Ossicular Reconstruction: A Comparative Study

3Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Ossicular discontinuity is the most common cause of conductive hearing loss. The use of ossicular graft material in ossicular chain reconstruction significantly improves the result in hearing. This study was conducted to compare and analyze the outcome of ossicular reconstruction using autologous conchal cartilage and homologous septal cartilage in terms of hearing results and graft uptake rates. Study design Randomized clinical trial. Study included 100 patients visiting the ENT department of government medical college. Patients between 16 and 50 years of age with history of chronic ear discharge and minimum air bone gap of 20 dB were included in the study. The patients underwent detailed ENT examination, audiological and radiological assessment of temporal bone and those patients with evidence of ossicular erosion were subjected to ossiculoplasty with autologous conchal cartilage (group I) and homologous septal cartilage (group II) randomly. The patients were followed up after 3 and 6 months to analyze functional and anatomical results. Out of 50 patients from group I who underwent autologous cartilage ossicular reconstruction 35 patients (70 %) showed significant improvement in hearing as assessed by pure tone audiogram after 6 months as compared to 34 patients (68 %) with homologous cartilage reconstruction. Complications and extrusion rates were almost similar in both the groups. Hearing results in both the groups are almost comparable but the homologous preserved cartilage being readily available is an equally good option for ossicular reconstruction.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sharma, K., Gururani, P., Arora, A., & Singh, G. (2017). Role of Autologous Versus Homologous Cartilage in Ossicular Reconstruction: A Comparative Study. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 69(2), 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-016-0965-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free